"a problem of culture within the BBC"

I suppose until they dig up the deceased Savile and actually convict him with the crimes, it will always be rumours, suppositions and conjecture? (it seems the catholic church got a lot of mileage out of that policy too)

And nor does your quote!LOL - you really aren't good at this, are you.

If that is what you think, then you are more of a fool than I thought - which is a surprise, as I thought you were already maxxed-out on being a fool.

It was once contested by Straggler and Bluegenes that the BBC was not the sort of news source that would "cover up" stories. It was a good thread. I leaned to the Straggler/Bluegenes side of that equation but only because the BBC is by comparison to US news sources pretty damn good.But I did see Dronester's points, which he did raise some good ones.So a chance like this to show a possible cover up was what he was "raging about." Well he's pulled up a few sources to show a potential cover-up, I'd say deal with that evidence. Whether he's right or wrong... He can answer for himself but I believe he feels they have done some covering up a-la Penn State style.- Oni

Says the man who NEEDED another participant to re-read and explain my original post using sock puppets.It burns.

But he isn't showing a possible cover up - he is just shouting "Ner ner!" at the likes of Straggler and BG. He has provided no evidence in his post and none in the links he provided.
He won't even be explicit about what he is saying.
I have had a clearer definition of what he is accusing the BBC of from you.But I don't expect Dronester to be specific.
He hides behind vague innuendo, so that he doesn't have to back up anything with evidence. Yup - always guilty before proved innocent with Dronester.
Why 'hate' with all the facts when you can 'hate' even more using none.

Says the man that NEEDED another participant to explain his original post to me - because he doesn't know what he is talking about. Then put down that picture of Kate Middleton and stop playing with it.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

You would make an excellent lawyer for the catholic church.

Did Jar and CS need extra tutoring?Or just you?

It's just jar not Jar and did you read my reply? Let me repeat it for you and expand if necessary.From Message 11:

quote:

---

Yes and yes.

---

Yes I still trust the BBC as a news source and Yes I think you are being silly to compare it to the Catholic Church.

jar (note the small 'j'),Yes, I got your reply the first time. Thanks for understanding my original post, considering it with ample thoughtfulness, and then replying. It was one of our better and more pleasant communications on the forum. I look forward to more.

Wasn't it a BBC documentary that sought to expose this whole story? (a Newsnight documentary)It was when that didn't get aired that the story really broke. Primarily broke on the BBC I might add.....There was recently another BBC documentary (a Panorama documentary) investigating the reasons for the original Newsnight documentary being pulled. The present editor of Newsnight had to quit over that.The whole thing has resulted in the BBC relentlessly reporting on itself. The BBC jouranlists seem to quite relish putting the boot into the leaders of the institution for which they work.Here is a BBC interview with some old BBC stalwarts on the whole issue and the culture of the BBC in general.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klS3gw5Fqhs Sure. It's not perfect but it isn't a government mouthpiece and it isn't reporting news for commercial gain. That is rare and precious in this overly commercial and politicised world. Yes. I think you are. The Catholic church was never going to expose it's own faults by broadcasting them to the world!!!Maybe it's more like a scientific hoax. A hoax conducted by some scientists and then exposed as a hoax by other scientists......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Dronester says: HAH! Wouldn't that be cool this Halloween season. Let's see them electrocute him live on the internet over & over for each victim........or maybe that should read "dead on the internet"....Edited by xongsmith, : addeadumEdited by xongsmith, : No reason given.